ObjectiveTo systematically review quality of evidence-based pneumocystosis guidelines for children, compare the differences and similarities among recommendations, and to provide references for clinical application. MethodsDatabases such as TRIP, PubMed, CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data, CBM, U.S National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), and Guidelines International Network (GIN) were searched to collect evidence-based guidelines on medication therapy for children with pneumocystosis. Methodological quality of included guidelines was evaluated according to the AGREE Ⅲ instrument, and the differences and similarities among recommendations were compared. ResultsA total of 3 evidence-based guidelines concerning children with pneumocystosis were included, of which, 2 were made by the USA and 1 by international academic organizations. Only 1 guideline was especially suitable for children, while others were for children of different ages and adults. The results of AGREE Ⅲ scoring showed that, among 6 domains which were rated using the AGREE Ⅲ instrument, "scope and purpose", "stakeholder involvement", "rigor of development", "clarity and presentation" and "editorial independence" were scored more than 60%; while "applicability" was only scored 46%, 25% and 31%. Besides, the grading of evidence and grading of recommendations were different. The medication recommendations of different guidelines were not the same. ConclusionThe quality of 3 guidelines is not high, and the grading of evidence and the strength of recommendation are still needed to be unified. The target population and the recommendations in the guidelines are different.
ObjectiveTo develop the questionnaire and test its reliability for investigating route, prevention, and control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in medical staffs.MethodsThis questionnaire was development based on the COVID-19 relevant guidelines, official documents issued by the National Health Committee of the People's Republic of China, and published studies. The development group performed repeated discussions and drafted the first questionnaire, then performed expert consultation and revised the draft according to their suggestions. Eventually, some frontline medical staffs were invited to carry out pre-test investigation of the questionnaire and test its reliability.ResultsThe first draft included 48 items; 18 experts were invited in the first round questionnaire and 10 experts in the second round questionnaire. The positive coefficient of experts in these two rounds was both greater than 75%, and the authority coefficient of experts' opinions was greater than 0.70. The variation coefficient of these items was between 0.00 and 0.35, the coordination coefficient of experts was 0.193 (P<0.05). The experts of above two rounds put forward 14 suggestions for text modification or adjustment options of some items; after the development group held repeatedly discussions, a total of 8 items were performed secondary consultation and finally reached consensus. The final questionnaire included two domains of questionnaire before and after confirmed diagnosis. The domain "before confirmed diagnosis" covered 4 sections and 29 items involving infectious cause, plan and knowledge of prevention and control, and psychological symptoms. The domain "after confirmed diagnosis" covered 5 sections and 21 items, included symptoms, treatment, and psychological status after diagnosis; impact on the surrounding environment and people, and awareness of protection after infection. The pre-test results showed that the total items were considerably numerous, some items were difficult to understand, some laboratory results and treatment conditions were ambiguous, etc. After modification and re-testing, the test-re-test reliability of each domain was between 0.74 and 0.93, and the overall re-test reliability of the questionnaire content was 0.82.ConclusionsThis research has developed a questionnaire for investigating infection process, prevention and control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in medical staff, and the items considered two domains prior to and after confirmed diagnosis. The reliability and practicability of the questionnaire are acceptable.